[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

By 1776, it can be argued that "Americans" were a thing. Yes, the colonies were legally subject to the crown of England, but they had no direct representation in Parliament (a major complaint in the Declaration of Independence), no landed aristocracy, and were linguistically and more ethnically diverse than their cousins back in England. A vast majority of "Americans" had been born in the colonies and very few of them had ever set foot on English (the Isles) soil. Although most were considered British citizens at the time due to fairly liberal immigration law, "Americans" included significant numbers of Irish, Germans, and Dutch, quite a few of whom didn't even speak the King's English yet. There was no state church in the colonies and one could find significant numbers of Puritans, Calvinists, and Quakers here. In addition, per capita land ownership was much more widespread in the colonies, meaning that more people could participate in local government here than back "home" in England. These are significant differences and contributed to an increasingly distinct self-identity.

Although many colonists still considered themselves English subjects in 1776- at least legally speaking- most of them also knew by then that they were very different, socially, economically, and culturally, than their island brethren.

I think many Americans already considered themselves Americans by 1776, and its recorded that the British were calling American born colonists Yankees as early as 1758 and probably for decades before. The word Yankee may have originated in the 1600's as a name used by British colonists for Dutch colonists. The Americans also knew that the individual colonies should be more closely politically connected and that they should be taking a more direct role in governing themselves by this time. As early as 1643 the colonies of Massachusetts, Plymouth, New Haven and Connecticut formed the United Colonies of New England to unite the Puritan colonists and defend against the Indians and the Dutch colonies. The Albany Congress in 1754 was as much about closer political union between the colonies as self governance for the colonies, and common defensive measures against the Indians and the French in Canada was also a important reason for it. Interestingly only the Northern "Yankee" colonies sent representatives to Albany, with the Southern Colonies (including Maryland) and the colonies that later became part of Canada sending no representatives at all. Also what non-white Americans thought about American independence is unknown. The size of the Black population of the 13 Colonies was proportionally larger than its current proportion of the US population and it had no say at all, and it's fair to say that the Indians were no friends of the Yankee pioneers. Those Americans who still considered themselves British after the war by and large vacated to Canada, Britain or other parts of the British Empire in the America's.

Originally Posted by Raellus

Not so. British officers posted to the colonies during the French & Indian War (Seven Years War) frequently commented on how unlike their own troops colonial militias were, and vice-versa. Fighting in the wilderness of North America was very different than close order drill on the open plains of western Europe- wilderness fighting was not taught to the colonial militias by British regulars; it was gleaned from generations of conflict with Native Americans (Amerindians, if you will). During the half-dozen or so wars of empire during the 17th and 18th centuries (but especially during the French & Indian War), colonial fighters were appalled at the harsh discipline meted out by British officers, and by rank based on station of birth. They were quite used to electing their own officers or simply going home if they didn't like the way a campaign was being run. By the same token, many British officers viewed the colonial militiamen as being undisciplined ruffians, good for little else besides manual labor.

If you're referring to the Continental Army of the American Revolution, then yes, many colonial officers were blooded while serving alongside the British, but most did so as part of the militia. However, only a very few ever served in the British regulars. In addition, much of the experience in European-style warfare was provided by non-British sources (Lafayette, Pulaski, and Von Steuben being the most famous examples).

George Washington himself heavily criticised the Virginia militia under his charge in 1755 during the Seven Years War as being highly insubordinate and next to useless. Although I think it's fair to say that the British Army was a fairly harsh environment with flogging routinely dished out on the rank and file to keep them in line. The American civilian volunteers were not British soldiers and would not have been used to either the harsh discipline and the class riddled system of command that was then pervasive in the British military. British officers would have been used to troops obeying orders to march, drill and follow established tactics, while qualities such as motivation, individual initiative and notions of democracy would have been alien to them. On the other hand many of the militia would have been natural outdoors men, familiar with firearms and hunting and had a superior knowledge of the American terrain, environment and climate, and were on average far healthier and better educated than their British counterparts of the time.

Originally Posted by Raellus

Many do know this. I make it a point of emphasis. Without the French, the Revolutionary War would have been a much more drawn-out affair; perhaps it would have been unsuccessful. To be fair though, the French did not provide direct military support until after the Continental army won the battle of Saratoga on its own, proving to the French that the British-American colonies had a chance of succeeding in their rebellion. After losing much of its own colonial territory in the French and Indian War, the French did not want to risk additional losses by backing a losing team. It was definitely a team-effort and I teach my students this.

In hind sight the French contribution to the American victory proved to be pyrrhic for them. Britain more than any other power thwarted Napoleon's plans for domination of Europe and the world, and industrialised at a far quicker rate and founded an even bigger empire in the 19th Century with France getting the left over's from what Britain didn't want. In the long term it also helped create and even bigger English speaking power to make the Francophiles squirm.

Originally Posted by Raellus

This isn't a point of emphasis in standard courses, but AP students could probably discuss British [Whig] support for the colonists in Parliament. The vocal minority not withstanding, the majority in Parliament rebuffed the Colonists demands for redress of the representation question as early as 1766 with the Declaratory Act.

By and large the British Parliament didn't give a hoot what the Americans wanted.

Originally Posted by Raellus

Absolutely, but this doesn't make them any more pro-French. It's not like the Louisiana Territory was a gift- if Napoleon hadn't been hard up for cash and already on his heels in the Caribbean (thanks, Toussaint Louverture!), it's unlikely that the deal would have been made. This is veering into alternative history a bit, but it would have likely been taken by force, like Mexican territory was, at a later date. As the British found out in 1776 and 1812, the American colonies were just too large and too distant to control from across an ocean (a key argument made by British national Thomas Paine in his famous pro-independence pamphlet, Common Sense).

I think in the long term the Americans still would have taken the Louisiana Territory, in fact they might have taken Canada as well if relations with Britain hadn't improved.

Originally Posted by Raellus

No. But should they? DeGaulle had lots of problems with the U.S. and had always been a particularly troublesome ally- just ask Churchill! The reason you cited was largely a fait accompli and if it hadn't been that, it would have been something else. Much of France's post-WWII foreign policy was based on maintaining its own diminishing hold on its crumbling foreign empire.

DeGaulle was just impossible to get along with unless you completely agreed with his delusions about French power and his vision of a post-war Western Europe dominated by France.

Originally Posted by Raellus

No, but they should. It's unfortunate. At the same time, I think some Americans feel that the French have been ungrateful for the assistance the U.S. provided them in the two World Wars. This sentiment surely drives a lot of the France bashing that goes on today, albeit unfairly.

I'd love to know how the US is supposed to have betrayed France.